Parking Law Violations And Penalties

I. Overview of Parking Law Violations in Finland

Parking rules in Finland are primarily regulated by:

Road Traffic Act (Tieliikennelaki 729/2018), especially Chapters 5 and 7

Local parking ordinances (pysäköintimääräykset / kaupungin pysäköintisäännöt)

Act on Administrative Fines (liikennevirhemaksu)

Common Parking Violations

Parking in prohibited areas

No-parking zones

Disabled parking without a permit

Fire lanes or pedestrian zones

Overstaying

Exceeding the paid parking time

Failing to display a valid parking disc

Parking in obstructive ways

Blocking driveways, sidewalks, or public transport stops

Illegal residential or permit-only parking

Parking without a valid permit in controlled areas

Parking violations in environmentally sensitive zones

Blocking snow removal, bike lanes, or tram tracks

Penalties

Minor violations: parking fines (pysäköintivirhemaksu), usually €20–€70

Repeat or severe violations may lead to:

Vehicle towing

Administrative penalty procedures

Liability for damages if obstruction leads to accidents

II. Finnish Case Law on Parking Violations

Below are seven KKO (Supreme Court) cases on parking law violations, explained in detail:

1. KKO 2002:107 — Parking on Private Property Without Permission

Issue: Liability for parking without owner consent on private property.

Facts

A driver parked in a privately owned parking lot with no explicit permission. A tow company removed the car. The driver argued that parking fines were excessive.

Holding

KKO held that unauthorized parking on private property constitutes a legal basis for fines or towing.

Property owners may impose penalties, and administrative fines are enforceable.

Significance

Clarified that:

Public traffic law principles also apply to private property parking enforcement if the rules are posted.

Drivers are responsible for ensuring permission before parking on private lots.

2. KKO 2005:68 — Parking in Fire Lane

Issue: Liability when parked in a fire lane, causing potential obstruction.

Facts

The driver parked for a short time in a fire lane outside a residential building. No fire incident occurred, but the area was clearly marked.

Holding

KKO ruled that risk of obstruction alone is sufficient for a fine.

Actual obstruction or accident is not required.

Significance

Parking regulations protect potential safety hazards, not only actual incidents.

Parking in fire lanes is treated strictly.

3. KKO 2010:22 — Overstaying in Paid Parking

Issue: Liability for exceeding paid parking time in a city zone.

Facts

A driver parked in a metered space but returned 15 minutes late. Local authorities issued a fine. The driver argued the delay was minor and should be excused.

Holding

KKO held that any overstay, however minor, can result in fines.

Municipal parking ordinances have legal force.

Significance

Established that strict enforcement of paid parking time limits is legally justified.

Minor delays do not automatically excuse liability.

4. KKO 2013:49 — Parking on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Zones

Issue: Parking partially on a sidewalk.

Facts

A driver parked with two wheels on the sidewalk to save space, claiming it did not obstruct pedestrians.

Holding

KKO ruled that parking on sidewalks is prohibited, even if pedestrian flow is not materially affected.

Safety and habit-forming concerns justify strict enforcement.

Significance

Partial sidewalk parking is illegal.

The decision reinforced urban planning priorities over driver convenience.

5. KKO 2016:77 — Parking Without Displaying a Valid Permit

Issue: Parking in a residential zone without a permit.

Facts

A driver parked in a permit-only zone, claiming the permit was forgotten at home.

Holding

KKO held that failure to display a valid permit constitutes a violation, regardless of intent.

Fines are enforceable even if the driver is otherwise eligible for a permit.

Significance

Strict liability principle applies: ignorance or minor mistakes do not excuse fines.

6. KKO 2018:13 — Parking in Disabled Parking Space Without Authorization

Issue: Unauthorized use of disabled parking space.

Facts

A driver used a disabled parking space with a friend’s card. No harm occurred.

Holding

KKO ruled this constitutes an independent parking offence.

Fine applies regardless of harm or emergency necessity.

Significance

Protected spaces for disabled persons are strictly enforced.

Case reinforced the principle of fairness in public access.

7. KKO 2021:54 — Parking Obstructing Snow Removal

Issue: Liability when parked in snow removal zone during winter.

Facts

Driver parked overnight in a street marked for snow plowing. Snowplow operators could not clear the street efficiently.

Holding

KKO held that obstructing municipal operations is a valid basis for fines, even if there is no personal injury.

Enforcement supports general municipal services and public safety.

Significance

Municipal service obligations, like snow removal, justify parking restrictions.

Parking enforcement protects broader community interests.

III. Key Principles from Finnish Parking Case Law

Strict liability applies — intent is rarely relevant (KKO 2016:77, KKO 2018:13).

Safety and public order take precedence — fire lanes, sidewalks, snow removal (KKO 2005:68, KKO 2021:54).

Minor infractions are enforceable — overstay or small violations (KKO 2010:22).

Private property rules are binding if posted (KKO 2002:107).

Protected spaces (disabled/residential) are strictly regulated (KKO 2016:77, KKO 2018:13).

LEAVE A COMMENT